In 1971 Oregon passed the nation’s first bottle bill. When that wave of environmental enthusiasm came to New Hampshire, it was then-Newmarket State Rep. Patti Blanchette who took up the cause — and became disparagingly referred to as “Bottle Bill” Blanchette.

The nasty nature of the debate was unfortunate for several reasons. Blanchette didn’t deserve the dishonor. She worked hard to represent the voters who put her in office. And unlike today, it could be argued the state and the environment were in need of the cleaning up a bottle bill would do.

Needless to say, Blanchette’s effort failed, as have others since then.

But that hasn’t stopped State Rep. Charles Weed, D-Keene, from trying again.

HB 1287 would require a deposit of five cents per container of beer, wine, water or carbonated beverages.

The difference, however, between now and when Blanchette pushed for a bottle bill is the lack of need.

Today, many New Hampshire communities have recycling programs. In towns like Newmarket, there is curbside pickup. In Epping, locals haul their own to the town recycling center.

And it’s not just bottles which get recycled. Paper and plastics are also taken out of the trash and later returned to useful life.

Another reason for opposing HB 1287 is that individual communities have the option of deciding whether to recycle. In this, the “Live Free or Die” state, having and maintaining such a local option is important.

Thankfully, there was little support for Weed’s bill during a recent public hearing.

For example, Craig Bulkley reportedly warned the bill could cost the state $1.4 million in lost wine sales, and $5.7 million in beer taxes. The chief operating officer of the New Hampshire Liquor Commission also noted New Hampshire’s competitive advantage over neighboring state with bottle bills that require deposits on beverage containers.

■■■

There are a number of bills working their way through the Legislature designed to deal with gun ownership in light of Sandy Hook, Columbine and too many other tragedies.

Some are well directed. One is Senate Bill 244, sponsored by Dover’s own Sen. David Watters. While not perfect it strikes at the need to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with accurate information so those already prohibited from having guns are properly listed in the federal system. (See our Jan. 14 editorial, “SB 224 a good step forward.”)

Other bills such as House Bill 1589 seem to overreach but raise issues worth legislative discussions. This bill would extend the reach of background checks to online gun sales and those by private individuals.

Unfortunately, there are some who are so close-minded they don’t even want to have these discussions.

Tea Party leader and former State Republican Chairman Jack Kimball reportedly told a House hearing on HB 1589: “I don’t intend to abide by this bill ... I am sick and tired of having to come here to these hallowed halls to continue to defend the God-given rights we all have.”

To applause from fellow opponents, reports the Union Leader newspaper, Kimball called on the bill’s sponsors to “step down today” from their elective officers. “You don’t belong here,” he is quoted as saying.

Those such as Kimball are outliers. That is why the GOP ousted him from his post and why he cannot be considered a responsible spokesman for gun rights.

Whether any gun legislation is passed in this session of the Legislature, the discussion which has resulted from incidents like Aurora, Colorado, is important. The democratic process requires it; and those such as Kimball should prize having the ability to appear before the Legislature to argue their right to keep and bear arms — not shun the notion in carte blanche fashion.